Cabanillas Stanchi Karin Melanie, Ebinger Martin, Hartmann Ulrike, Queudeville Manon, Feucht Judith, Ost Michael, Koch Marie-Sarah, Malaval Carmen, Mezger Markus, Schober Sarah, Weber Simone, Michaelis Sebastian, Lange Veit, Lang Peter, Handgretinger Rupert, Döring Michaela
Department of General Pediatrics, Hematology/Oncology, University Children's Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen 72076, Germany.
University Pharmacy, Eberhard-Karls-University of Tübingen, Tübingen 72076, Germany.
Drug Des Devel Ther. 2019 Sep 30;13:3439-3451. doi: 10.2147/DDDT.S214264. eCollection 2019.
Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are a major burden for patients undergoing emetogenic chemotherapy. International guidelines recommend an antiemetic prophylaxis with corticosteroids, 5-HTR-antagonists and NKR-antagonists. The NKR-antagonist fosaprepitant has shown favorable results in pediatric and adult patients. There is little pediatric experience with fosaprepitant.
This non-interventional observation study analyzed 303 chemotherapy courses administered to 83 pediatric patients with a median age of 9 years (2-17 years), who received antiemetic prophylaxis either with fosaprepitant and granisetron with or without dexamethasone (fosaprepitant group/FG; n=41), or granisetron with or without dexamethasone (control group/CG; n=42), during moderately (CINV risk 30-90%) or highly (CINV risk>90%) emetogenic chemotherapy. The two groups' results were compared with respect to the safety and efficacy of the antiemetic prophylaxis during the acute (0-24hrs after chemotherapy), delayed (>24-120hrs after chemotherapy) and both CINV phases. Laboratory and clinical adverse events were compared between the two cohorts.
Adverse events were not significantly different in the two groups (p>0.05). Significantly fewer vomiting events occurred during antiemetic prophylaxis with fosaprepitant in the acute (23 vs 142 events; p<0.0001) and the delayed (71 vs 255 events; p<0.0001) CINV phase. In the control group, the percentage of chemotherapy courses with vomiting was significantly higher during the acute (24%/FG vs 45%/CG; p<0.0001) and delayed CINV phase (28%/FG vs 47%/CG; p=0.0004). Dimenhydrinate (rescue medication) was administered significantly more often in the CG, compared to the FG (114/FG vs 320/CG doses; p<0.0001). Likewise, in the control group, dimenhydrinate was administered in significantly more (p<0.0001) chemotherapy courses during the acute and delayed CINV phases (79 of 150; 52.7%), compared to the fosaprepitant group (45 of 153; 29.4%).
Antiemetic prophylaxis with fosaprepitant and granisetron with or without dexamethasone was well tolerated, safe and effective in pediatric patients. However, larger prospective trials are needed to evaluate these findings.
化疗引起的恶心和呕吐(CINV)是接受致吐性化疗患者的主要负担。国际指南推荐使用皮质类固醇、5-羟色胺受体拮抗剂(5-HTR)和神经激肽受体拮抗剂(NKR)进行止吐预防。神经激肽受体拮抗剂福沙匹坦在儿科和成年患者中已显示出良好效果。关于福沙匹坦,儿科经验较少。
这项非干预性观察研究分析了303个化疗疗程,这些疗程给予了83名中位年龄为9岁(2 - 17岁)的儿科患者,他们在中度(CINV风险30 - 90%)或高度(CINV风险>90%)致吐性化疗期间,接受了福沙匹坦与格拉司琼联合或不联合地塞米松的止吐预防(福沙匹坦组/FG;n = 41),或格拉司琼联合或不联合地塞米松(对照组/CG;n = 42)。比较了两组在急性(化疗后0 - 24小时)、延迟(化疗后>24 - 120小时)以及两个CINV阶段的止吐预防的安全性和有效性。比较了两个队列之间的实验室和临床不良事件。
两组的不良事件无显著差异(p>0.05)。在急性(23次vs 142次;p<0.0001)和延迟(71次vs 255次;p<0.0001)CINV阶段,使用福沙匹坦进行止吐预防时呕吐事件显著减少。在对照组中,急性(24%/FG vs 45%/CG;p<0.0001)和延迟CINV阶段(28%/FG vs 47%/CG;p = 0.0004)出现呕吐的化疗疗程百分比显著更高。与福沙匹坦组相比,对照组使用茶苯海明(急救药物)的频率显著更高(114/FG vs 320/CG剂量;p<0.0001)。同样,在对照组中,与福沙匹坦组(153个疗程中的45个;29.4%)相比,在急性和延迟CINV阶段使用茶苯海明的化疗疗程显著更多(p<0.0001)(150个疗程中的79个;52.7%)。
福沙匹坦与格拉司琼联合或不联合地塞米松进行止吐预防在儿科患者中耐受性良好、安全且有效。然而,需要更大规模的前瞻性试验来评估这些结果。